Having stayed in ~50 AirBnBs, we have very seldom used sketchy ones that have the problems you describe (once).
Are you certain you are representing most unit owners fairly?
992 karma · joined January 2, 2009
Are you certain you are representing most unit owners fairly?
- lower profit AirBnBs to long-term rentals
Reducing supply of AirBnBs does the opposite; drawing marginal suppliers (legal AirBnB units that used to be long term rentals, are converted to AirBnB.)
You’ll have to provide extraordinary evidence that reducing total supply of something (units) can lead to lower prices and more availability. Because it has never done so, in all of history…
And, that an increased supply and reduced profitability would not drive some of that short-term rental stock into the long-term rental market?
It appears to be the consensus opinion of HN that reducing supply increases availability and/or affordability.
Howso??
Of course, this immediately has these first-order effects:
- Putting thousands of home owners into financial dire straights, by reducing their income at the same time that their refinanced mortgages are increasing by as much as 100%.
- Eliminating thousands more rental units of coming onto the market, by eliminating the AirBnB income stream necessary to rationalize building or renovating those units into existence.
These first-order effects are so obvious, that it cannot be an accident -- the assumption would assume such a low intelligence on the part of the politicians enacting this legislation as to be deeply insulting.
But the alternative explanation; that this was an intentional result, also brings into question:
Why would a politician want to simultaneously destroy both tourism (making short-term rental accommodations both less plentiful and more expensive), while also destroying thousands of rental units from being constructed, making long-term rentals both less plentiful and more expensive?
The obvious alternative -- goosing the production of all types of short- and long-term rental units by encouraging the production of AirBnB units (increasing their supply, thereby decreasing their cost and profitability, encouraging the migration of existing AirBnB stock to long-term rentals) -- appears to have bypassed the BC political elite.
How (and why) would they not want that?
You can now build Internet-scale distributed systems, with or without requiring centralized (eg. DNS, SSL certs, etc.).
In other words, massively distributed apps without any means for centralized authorities to stop them.
You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
But seriously; a "mistake" is usually something that cannot be foreseen by a group of people reasonably talented in the state of the art.
This product release was so far from a "mistake", that it isn't funny. It was spectacularly well tested, found to be operating within design parameters, and was released to great fanfare.
They expressed delight in their product, and actually seemed surprised that there was a backlash by the great benighted unwashed masses of their lessers, who clearly couldn't be expected to understand the elevated insights being produced by their creation!
So: not a "mistake". Institutional Bias, baked into a model. Remember: a system's purpose is what is does, not what you think it is supposed to do.
Bitcoin has many, many problems - but “usury” isn’t one of them.
In fact, that its sole utility: freedom for corruption, has yielded such a high price, is evidence of the desirability of that one utility!
Unbiased AI is, I believe, an existential threat to the “powers that be” retaining control of the narrative, and must be avoided at all costs.
They are made, and maintained by the people in them.
Move 100 good families into a wasteland, and in a few years you’ll have a “desirable community“. Eject wastrels from a community, and you’ll get a “desirable community”. And, no: race, sex, religion doesn’t appear to have anything to do with it. Good people love other people and like to learn and help; bad people hate you and everyone else and don’t like helping.
Why not let people live with people who love and learn from others? And who love to help mentor others who choose to want the same things into their community?
Unfortunately, it appears most regulation is bent on preventing this from happening. Because it’s unfair or something. And other regulations prevent good people from mentoring people who’d like to be good. Again, unfair something something…
Problem is: allowing wastrels to run rampant without restraint hurts them, more than anyone else (who just leave). It’s harming them to continue supporting their bad choices beliefs and behavior, rather than being forced (by results) to ask for help.
How does that make sense? Yet, here we are — a million square km of beautiful land suitable for living here in Canada, and we can’t decide to build a community due to government regulation (that isn’t predestined by design to become a slum).
And before you explode in self-righteous fury, ask yourself:
Where would I want to live in my elderly years — and exactly who built and maintains that community?
The answer won’t be who you think it should be…
QED.
We mostly don’t all want or need the hardware to run these AIs ourselves, all the time. But, when we do, we need lots of it for a little while.
This is what Holochain was born to do. We can rent massive capacity when we need it, or earn money renting ours when we don’t.
All running cryptographically trusted software at Internet scale, without the knowledge or authorization of commercial or government “do-gooders”.
Exciting times!
What could go wrong…
You’ll quickly realize that you don’t really “know”.
Bitcoin's PoW provided reliable Byzantine Fault Tolerant consensus in un-permissioned distributed systems. It was a breakthrough, but provided only statistical finality. Hashgraph improved on that to provide asynchronous BFT (aBFT) and deterministic finality and blocking on detection of lack of quorum, but: global consensus still necessarily fails either Availability or Consistency on Partitioning.
By imitating physical distributed, decentralized systems where each agent only demands consensus with those agent(s) directly interacting with it, each "Agent" only maintains (and cryptographically proves authority for through PKI signing) its own state, and publishes that state to a shared best-effort DHT (where each party hosting an entry validates the entry by running the purported shared application "entry validation" code, rejecting the entry and "warranting" the offending node on detection of validation failure). Just like an immune system response.
Any traditional (a)BFT consensus algorithm can be implemented at whatever scale is appropriate for consensus, but usually only tiny portions of the global state (between a few parties) needs consensus, dramatically reducing the total complexity. Usually, simplistic algorithms ("everybody sign this entry and append it to their state. OK, everyone done?") are sufficient, and trivial to implement. But Hashgraph aBFT may be implemented, if you need it.
But, overall, the global system proceeds unimpeded by even large-scale Partition failure. You can glue the system together with "SD cards taped to pigeons", if necessary -- it just slightly increases your transaction times (from milliseconds to hours), but the shared system maintains internal consistency at all times.
- no full “OODA Loop” continuous feedback self-hosted systems.
These AIs are already incredibly useful in “one shot” mode. I can’t imagine how crazy they’ll be with the ability to implement even rudimentary hypothesis-test-refinement cycles…
Literally linearly from 100% efficacy to 0% efficacy over 7 days from onset of symptoms. Linear, over ~100 studies!
You don't see that kind of statistically profound predictive accuracy often; but when you do, you sit up and take notice.
Furthermore, in various other anti-viral treatments that are considered effective, onset-of-treatment is a critical determinant. Typically, over 24 to 48 hours after onset, treatment is pointless.
Why not consider that important to address (or even mention?) in Ivermectin studies? The mind boggles...
Virtually all of the studies that do indicate treatment initiation within 1-3 days of onset of symptoms do strongly indicate effectiveness.
It seems ... odd to avoid disclosing average start of treatment from onset of symptoms, don't you think? Especially when this appears to be the primary determinant of successful treatment in numerous (>100) studies?
Covid has been so done for so long where I'm from, that I can't believe this is still a thing some places...
First, any "rule of law" can only operate in the assumption that law-breakers can be easily captured and sentenced. This is so clearly impossible (witness the almost complete inability of law-enforcement to interdict drugs entering prisons) as to be laughable.
No, unless a group of free people basically agree, internally, not to do something -- of their own free will -- you aren't going to have a civil society free of that thing.
Basically, the "rule of law" is a guard-rail that allows a civil society to expel individuals who choose to not abide by the "high trust" commitments of members of that society. Which is fine -- they just have to pursue their behaviours elsewhere.
And this is where it becomes sticky. Most people want the benefits of "high trust" and "rule of law" -- as long as it enforces behaviors on others and not themselves. Which is also fine, so long as they are living with others, of like mind, in their own society. Just let us know in a generation or two how that works out for you!
Furthermore, they also demand not just Reasonable Accommodation, but full Mental Assent to their (fill in the blank) beliefs. Which, also, is fine -- so long as they are living in a society of their choice, with others who (also, presumably) have the same demands on each-other for Mental Assent to (whatever).
But, for whatever reason, people are generally not OK with a society that says: "Well, you are clearly not in agreement with these constraints that we believe leads to Civil Society, so we'd like to you to go somewhere more amenable with your beliefs. And, no, this is not a request."
Which I don't understand.
"Gross Negligence" is guaranteed.
Any solution that doesn't involve me securing my information w/ my own private keys (secured by whatever level of security I deem adequate) will lead to all of my private information released into the wild, eventually.
Fortunately, most of it is so out-of-date as to be worthless.
However, consider the implications. Even if I'm catastrophically bad at securing my data (for example, I print my private keys and give it to a few friends to put in their filing cabinets or whatever) -- some attacker can gain access to only the data they specifically target! Probably, a handful of low-value accounts, obtained at great expense using one-by-one attacks on individuals.
There is literally no approach vector that harvests all of the data for every account holder on some random poorly-secured rando's website, say, like AT&T!
I've been at this for 40 years. It's getting worse, not better. The solution isn't "more security". The solution is: the data simply isn't there, but in 8 billion individually secured hands.
Are there issues with this? For sure. But -- they only affect you, not your 1,000,000 neighbours.
It doesn't seem to make sense to me to pursue this path as a politician; didn't work out well for Louis XVI and his ilk, nor for the inevitable populist reformers/revolutionaries like Robespierre.
But, I guess the guillotine is quick, if you've gotta go somehow. I wonder if politicians realize that's where the populist desperation resulting from this plan of theirs ends?
Interesting that this set doesn't include the one thing that seems to be required for Civil Society: high trust. In other words, an general internal locus of control and set of shared morals that essentially allows you to leave your doors unlocked.
If a classic sociopath can completely agree with your set of ideals, perhaps you shouldn't complain about the outcomes?
The only viable solution is to make it so expensive for them to hold /any/ of your data that they will look for a decentralized solution where you hold your data, and grant authorization for the corporation to use some of it (eg. your name and postal address).
Then, they might be able to fumble that, but the damage is limited to just publicly available data.
Agent-based system that are designed for building large-scale distributed and decentralized systems are the future.
Holochain is one such system. There may be others, but it seems to be the most advanced.
Their control over monetary policy in general is likely over.
This requires something to be pledged upon creation of such money.
This requirement cannot be (forever) defeated…
That, alone, is a stinging indictment of public education.
And, usually spending about the total daily time required for just the assigned homework from a public school.